Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 07:19, 22 March 2022

June 9

Template:Left60

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete It's actually a bit more complicated, but it is still redundant to simple div markup. Plastikspork _―Œ 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Left60 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Basically a giant, unnecessarily complicated template that outputs "<div style=width:66%;>" that is no longer used at all. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Sisterend

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ 23:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Sisterend (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Formerly part of a Sister wiki table of some sort that no longer exists. Unused. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Cmscat

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete given that this template is only transcluded here, it is redundant to simply prepending the text with "commons:". No uses in article space, and no objections to deletion. Plastikspork _―Œ 00:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Cmscat (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Barely used template (1 mainspace transclusion) which really only links things to Wikimedia Commons, which can be done simply by adding "commons:" to the front of a wikilink (ex. ]). Axem Titanium (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Silence

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ 23:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Silence (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template, with little room for future use. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:URLlinks

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. Unused and no objections to deletion. RL0919 (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:URLlinks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Orphaned and essentially redundant to {{linksearch}} Plastikspork _―Œ 17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Regional Preferente de Extremadura Group 1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ 23:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Regional Preferente de Extremadura Group 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Navbox contains only redlinks Jameboy (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jameboy (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Nimitz class aircraft carrier displacement

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ 23:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Nimitz class aircraft carrier displacement (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

The only place where this template was used was Nimitz class aircraft carrier. Having removed it from there, as I felt it was much easier to have it on the page so I could work on it there, the template is not used anywhere, and will almost certainly not be used, as I have replaced it on other articles with the individual, more precise figures for the ship. As a result, the template is now redundant. Fourth ventricle (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox outlying island

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ 23:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox outlying island (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Low-use template which substantially duplicates {{infobox island}} in purpose but lacks much in the way of compatibility. Recommend that it is either subclassed and then substituted or that the existing transclusions are manually updated to use the more widely-used template. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete after replacing all instances with {{infobox island}}. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete as redundant Dr. Blofeld 14:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Infobox Burg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Keep for now as a translation tool that should be substituted, resulting in conversion to a more common/generic infobox template (e.g., building or military structure, see Neuschwanstein Castle). Plastikspork _―Œ 16:05, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Burg (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Transitional template which uses German language parameters. Redundant to {{infobox building}}, but not worth merging. I've already converted the template to be a sub-class of {{infobox building}}; existing instances should be substituted, which will cause them to transcluse that template directly. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Firstly, this greatly increases the workload of translation, because, for every article on German castles, of which there are many, the infobox would have to be laboriously and repetitively translated as well. This template greatly accelerates the operation, automatically translating much of the text. This may not mean much to others, but to the small band of translators it's a major time-saver, allowing effort to focus on the meat of the article and more articles to be transwikied in less time. Secondly, the recommended template does not have all the parameters required - e.g. for type of construction, typ of occupant (e.g. ducal seat, clergy..,) or condition. We should keep this template until the majority of articles are transwikied and perhaps convert the infobox with the aid of bots. It's a massive help. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• The question is whether or not all of that material is actually appropriate for an infobox. No English-language article on a castle uses it presently, and there's nothing uniquely suitable to German castles there. If those fields are appropriate then they should be upmerged to {{infobox building}}. I hadn't realised that this was an ongoing process (I'd thought it was part of a one-time migration), so keeping this as a shim over {{infobox building}} should be fine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, I'm not sure what a "shim over" is. Are you saying you're content with the template for now until migration of articles is largely complete? Translators appear to be in short supply, so anything we can do to minimise our workload would really help. Others can then swap the templates over in slower time once the extra fields are available, so we don't lose information by default. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, I should have linked to shim. In its present form the template is actually just an instance of {{infobox building}}, which takes the German parameters and converts them to English ones. In the process of converting it, I dropped the fields which {{infobox building}} does not support such as associated royal family, construction material, and condition. I also not that the alternative position map given in the documentation ("Poskarte") was not actually supported by the code anyway. I'm fine with the template remaining in this condition indefinitely if it helps to transfer infobox material across from de-WP. If that's how it's going to remain then I'll update the documentation to match. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

  I see what you've done with the template. Very clever! I have now learnt something that may have applicability elsewhere. However, wouldn't it be more appropriate for the infobox to "shim" over to ]? This seems to have the additional parameters needed. Also the original template had one or two parameters with switch data tables that automatically translated the data as well as the field name (in cases where the data is fairly limited and predictable). This also saves massive time and helps with consistent translations. That's now lost it seems. Can it be restored just for those parameters. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

  I'm somewhat sceptical that {{infobox castle}} should be redirecting to {{infobox military structure}} anyway, given that this isn't the 16th century. However, if you feel that it's a more appropriate fit then go ahead and convert it (or ping me on my talk page and I'll do it). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

• question Is this a permanent template or do you intend to replace it with the English version? I'd rather discourage its use. What's the point? If the de-article is properly written and referenced, then the template is the least concern compared to translation and checking references. If the de-article is merely a stub ... what's the point? 199 stubs on castle ruins (sic) in Bayern alone? East of Borschov (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I have no difficulty with the template eventually being superseded. The point of it is explained above. As a translator of over 1,500 articles I can tell you that changing infoboxes and translating the fieldnames and data everytime is highly repetitive, boring and time-consuming. If I had to do this every time I would probably go and play golf instead rather than enhance Misplaced Pages with new information! Of course, if anyone is volunteering to change all the infoboxes - speak up - there will be hundreds of them, though. --Bermicourt (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Dancing with the Stars (United States) Season 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete Plastikspork _―Œ 19:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Dancing with the Stars (United States) Season 2 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This nomination is joined by the others:

Template:Dancing with the Stars (United States) Season 1 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dancing with the Stars (United States) Season 3 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dancing with the Stars (United States) Season 4 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dancing with the Stars (United States) Season 5 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dancing with the Stars (United States) Season 6 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dancing with the Stars (United States) Season 7 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dancing with the Stars (United States) Season 8 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dancing with the Stars (United States) Season 9 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Template:Dancing with the Stars (United States) Season 10 (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

and also by the main template because it is deficient in coverage and is again a listing of cast:

Template:DancingwiththeStars(US) (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This template offers nothing that is not present at the article for this television program. It's essentially redundant to the article page, which has far greater and informative detail. The category was created along with this list and is only a listing of celebrity dance participants. Cast listing templates are not useful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete all. It is inappropriate to tag people, typically actors, with navigation boxes specific to an individual role. Such people typically will have many roles over their careers and such an approach would have about a hundred navboxes at the foot of someone such as Laurence Olivier. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 03:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

You forget this is not a role, it is a competition and a reality TV show like Idol and Celebrity Apprentice, and what about Celebrity Apprentice, they are actors and playing a role by your definition!BLUE_DOG 00:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Role or cast member, it's the same difference. All of this is listed on either the main article or on each season article. Indeed WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and those should be dealt with separately. But thanks for the suggestion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• BIG KEEP Look at the Celebrity Apprentice ones, which I mirrored these off of, and these are necessary to link the articles of the seasons participants to the main season page!BLUE_DOG 00:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Then if you are going to delete all of these, well your must delete all of these, too!

• Template:The Celebrity Apprentice Season 1
• Template:The Celebrity Apprentice Season 2
• Template:The Celebrity Apprentice Season 3
• Template:Survivor contestants
• Category:American Idol templates, all of them in here
• Category:I'm a Celebrity…Get Me out of Here! navbox templates, all of them in here
• Category:The Ultimate Fighter templates, all of them in here
• Category:Dancing with the Stars (United States)

Got you!BLUE_DOG 00:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists. Those other templates may need to be looked at, but we need to keep this on topic. I also suggest Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and Misplaced Pages:Arguments to make in deletion discussions. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  01:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Cast templates are undesirable for reasons that are explained above, and similar templates have been deleted by consensus in a number of past TFDs. I haven't examined all teh templates linked by Bluedogtn above, but if they are just more cast templates then all he is doing is giving us a list of other templates that should be nominated for deletion, not a valid argument for keeping the ones in the current nomination. --RL0919 (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
• Delete all, per RL0919. Got you! Axem Titanium (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.